Bishop's Resignation Letter

[_Buffalo]

So far your quote does not say Joseph was practicing polygamy, and again one paragraph means that most students will miss it or forget about it, particularly since it does not say he was practicing. An instructor would have to add details, but in seminary that is very unlikely. So it is expected that many members will not know this, and since I know you have seen many others say this it should not come as a surpirise. So yes I would call this hiding.

From the student manual for Church History in the Fulness of Times:

Church History in the Fulness of Times

Moreover, Joseph Smith and the Church were to accept the principle of plural marriage as part of the restoration of all things (see v. 45). Accustomed to conventional marriage patterns, the Prophet was at first understandably reluctant to engage in this new practice. Due to a lack of historical documentation, we do not know what his early attempts were to comply with the commandment in Ohio. His first recorded plural marriage in Nauvoo was to Louisa Beaman; it was performed by Bishop Joseph B. Noble on 5 April 1841.During the next three years Joseph took additional plural wives in accordance with the Lord’s commands.

The above quotation was provided by darth j. on page 8 of this thread. It seems that the students have more information in their manual than I do in the textbook. Next problem?

Most likely published well after the Bishop was of age for seminary. Second edition is 2000.

[_RockSlider]

You don't want to venture displeasing Will's god. He's a fickle and selfish god that will not hesitate to punish anyone or anything that displeases him.

This is simply another "hit" for Mormonism's truth claims. Will, with his calling and election already sure, is already most of the way there!

[_Buffalo]

Hey, you said it. I'm not the one who's worshiping him, though.

It's a very strange argument Will is making:

1. God gave us our conscience, the light of Christ, to know right from wrong.
2. We know that sleeping around and lying to your wife about it are wrong because the light of Christ tells us it is wrong.
3. The great test of life is to ignore the light of Christ and accept as righteous that which the light of Christ tells us is wrong.

This isn't about allowing God to shape our minds but rather our willingness to sear our own consciences in order to support an institution. If God were behind this rather abominable practice, He would not have given us a conscience.

It's a cult mentality - ignore your conscience and obey the leader, even if all his demands from "god" seem to serve the interests of the leader.

Such a program leaves people defenseless against ecclesiastical abuse.

[_Joseph]

I stated that the youth learn about his polygamy and it is mentioned in a church history book that the young study. If seminary students know it, why didn't the bishop?
**********************************

Well, I asked four Seminary students about Joseph Smith and plural marriage. Three of the four said it was Brigham Young that did it, not Joseph Smith.
The fourth said God gave it but Joseph Smith did not do it but stayed true to Emma and that is why only she had his kids.

Two are graduating from Seminary next month. One has already graduated, two years ago. One will probably graduate next year.
Three are girls, one is a boy currently waiting for a mission call.

Apparently not everyone "knows this stuff"?

[_Yong Xi]

Those who cannot wrap their minds around the principle that “what is wrong under one circumstance may be, and often is, right under another” are not suitable for the eternal kingdom of the God who created this planet and who will eventually transform it as an eternal abode for those of His children whose minds and hearts are in harmony with His.


And so it is.

Pure, unadulterated poop.

[_mentalgymnast]

Are you willing to accept the man's statements at face value, such as 'honesty drives my motives'? If not, what evidence do you have to the contrary? If none, then you're just casting aspersion to save your own faith.

To the same extent that you are able to accept the possibility that the man's statements may not reveal all his motives for apostatizing. What evidence do you have that there are not other things that may also factor in on his apostasy? In this forum it is impossible to know either way. We just don't know.

Your willingness to accept what this man has to say at face value is dependent on what you bring along with you to the conversation.

Regards,
MG

[_Will Schryver]

It's a very strange argument Will is making:

1. God gave us our conscience, the light of Christ, to know right from wrong.

The argument is not strange at all. Indeed, it is one of the key binding principles of the restoration of all things.

Let's read the entire paragraph from which my previous quote was taken:

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said that thou shalt not kill, -- at another time he said thou shalt utterly destroy. This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted -- by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.

-Joseph Smith, Letter to Nancy Rigdon, April 11, 1842

I understand very well that there are a great number of people who cannot comprehend this principle. Nancy Rigdon, Sarah Pratt, and William Law were among a great number of people who recoiled at this principle in Joseph Smith's day. They acted, as they believed, according to the dictates of their own conscience. All one has to do is read the text of the single issue of the Nauvoo Expositor in order to discover that Runtu's reaction is virtually identical to that articulated by Law and his compatriots.

My point is that we are all free to consider and to choose. By so doing, we clearly establish our allegiance or our opposition to the God Joseph Smith revealed to mankind.

From Runtu's perspective (and, admittedly, that of many other people), there is an immutable set of criteria for what is right and wrong. The ultimate question, of course, is whether or not that is true from God's perspective.

[_Runtu]

From Runtu's perspective (and, admittedly, that of many other people), there is an immutable set of criteria for what is right and wrong.

Not so at all. What is immutable, however, is the light of Christ. It is not situational, nor can it be subordinated to one's own will.

The ultimate question, of course, is whether or not that is true from God's perspective.

So God's perspective differs from the light of Christ. Got it.

[_Yong Xi]

Let's read the entire paragraph from which my previous quote was taken:

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said that thou shalt not kill, -- at another time he said thou shalt utterly destroy. This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted -- by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.

-Joseph Smith, Letter to Nancy Rigdon, April 11, 1842

I understand very well that there are a great number of people who cannot comprehend this principle. Nancy Rigdon, Sarah Pratt, and William Law were among a great number of people who recoiled at this principle in Joseph Smith's day. They acted, as they believed, according to the dictates of their own conscience. All one has to do is read the text of the single issue of the Nauvoo Expositor in order to discover that Runtu's reaction is virtually identical to that articulated by Law and his compatriots.

My point is that we are all free to consider and to choose. By so doing, we clearly establish our allegiance or our opposition to the God Joseph Smith revealed to mankind.

From Runtu's perspective (and, admittedly, that of many other people), there is an immutable set of criteria for what is right and wrong. The ultimate question, of course, is whether or not that is true from God's perspective.

Kind of makes one wonder what the priesthood would have looked like had Joseph been gay.

[_Will Schryver]

What is immutable, however, is the light of Christ. It is not situational ...

So you say ... and I have no doubt you believe it--notwithstanding a gnawing sense that it just might not be true; that Joseph Smith was absolutely right when he said:

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said that thou shalt not kill, -- at another time he said thou shalt utterly destroy. This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted -- by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.

-Joseph Smith, Letter to Nancy Rigdon, April 11, 1842

Again, I am deliberately attempting to place this question in stark relief. My observation is that the fundamental principle it embodies eventually becomes the cutting edge of the division effected among the people who have been exposed to the restored gospel.

It is undeniably clear that your perspective is in direct opposition to what Joseph Smith had to say on the topic, don't you agree?

The question then becomes: did Joseph Smith reveal the mind of God in this often-quoted letter to Nancy Rigdon? I am personally convinced that he did.